Doing Drugs is not a Victimless crime

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


You are absolutely, positively the KING of strawmen aren't you? Have you ever had a debate where you haven't engaged in that time honored logical fallacy?

translation: you're pwned again.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Kidicious
translation: you're pwned.

So you admit you use strawmen... check.

[Berzerker]

Call it whatever you like. There are a lot of people wacked out on Coke tonight driving around. According to you they're all innocent until they hit someone. The key word is "until."

And many, many more sitting at home using the drug of their choice minding their own business, but according to you, they're guilty too. Collective guilt is the basis for anti-semitism and racism, I'd be careful about embracing it as the foundation of an ideology. As for the people driving under the influence of coke, they're guilty of driving under the influence, period. If they hit someone, they're guilty of hitting someone while driving under the influence. Thats why we treat people differently based on what they actually did, but you're advocating we punish millions of people who aren't even out driving.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Berzerker
And many, many more sitting at home using the drug of their choice minding their own business, but according to you, they're guilty too. Collective guilt is the basis for anti-semitism and racism, I'd be careful about embracing it as the foundation of an ideology. As for the people driving under the influence of coke, they're guilty of driving under the influence, period. If they hit someone, they're guilty of hitting someone while driving under the influence. Thats why we treat people differently based on what they actually did, but you're advocating we punish millions of people who aren't even out driving.

And Berz comes along and explains why Kid's post was such a strawman... more patience than I have for Kid's tripe.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Berzerker
As for the people driving under the influence of coke, they're guilty of driving under the influence, period. If they hit someone, they're guilty of hitting someone while driving under the influence. Thats why we treat people differently based on what they actually did, but you're advocating we punish millions of people who aren't even out driving.

Do you think driving under the influence is a victimless crime?

[Berzerker]

And Berz comes along and explains why Kid's post was such a strawman... more patience than I have for Kid's tripe.

Hehe

Do you think driving under the influence is a victimless crime?

You're changing the subject, you need to defend accusing people who dont drive under the influence for the actions of those who do drive under the influence and cause accidents. I dont believe in victimless crimes, if there is a crime there is an actual or intended victim. What you describe is a property crime and contract violation, the people who own the road have set up rules by which they allow us their use. If I want to drive under the influence, I need to build my own road.

[Kidlicious]

If someone drives under the influence of Coke every day for a year is that still a contract violation.

[Berzerker]

Are you going to defend your strawman? Looks to me like you're trying to run away from it. Yes, its still a contract violation. If they get caught they could very well lose their driving privileges.

[Kidlicious]

So if someone uses coke only once, gets in a car, drives, and hits someone they are guilty of a victim crime, but if a long time drug addict, who drives everyday, high on an eight ball of coke, never hits anyone it's a victimless crime.

That's ****ing perfect. I hope I'm as smart as you when I grow up.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Kidicious
So if someone uses coke only once, gets in a car, drives, and hits someone they are guilty of a victim crime, but if a long time drug addict, who drives everyday, high on an eight ball of coke, never hits anyone it's a victimless crime.

Well (aside from contract violations), I thought that was fairly obvious. I mean a victim crime NEEDS A VICTIM! If you don't hit anyone, who is the victim? Society?

However, we do penalize that specific victimless crime because they violated their contract for using the roads.. because they don't own the roads (everyone does). What's the justification for penalizing a guy smoking a joint in his own home and staying there?

[Berzerker]

I told you, I dont believe in victimless crimes.

What you describe is a property crime and contract violation, the people who own the road have set up rules by which they allow us their use. If I want to drive under the influence, I need to build my own road.

That was my answer, try using it instead of another strawman.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Berzerker
I told you, I dont believe in victimless crimes.

So basically I'm not twisting your argument here.

So if someone uses coke only once, gets in a car, drives, and hits someone they are guilty of a victim crime, but if a long time drug addict, who drives everyday, high on an eight ball of coke, never hits anyone it's a victimless crime.

[Imran Siddiqui]

[q=Berzerker]What you describe is a property crime and contract violation, the people who own the road have set up rules by which they allow us their use. If I want to drive under the influence, I need to build my own road.[/q]

Try again, Kid.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Try again, Kid.

Drugs are illegal. You try.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Drugs are illegal. You try.

And how is the act of making drugs illegal transform drug use into a victim crime now?